Pro-Choice is irrelevant

by:JasonFontaine

Pro-Choice is irrelevant. Choice is indeed given in every situation. Before conception. After this - it's simply convenience as is evidence all over the board.Ironically - that which is held in highest esteem is essentially taken away from those which cannot defend themselves.And those who often march against war - government corruption - give free health care to all -deny the purest form of innocence - the totally defenseless - any choice at all!

reply from:Shenanigans

Choice = Abortion.So obviously its relevant to people who are unfamiliar with correct semantics and the lexicon of the language they claim to be fluent in.

reply from:House

You are against universal health care, but bragged that you and your family get free health care? GTFO!

reply from:JasonFontaine

Ignorance is rampant when not having to be held accountable by what you say. I never "bragged" about being given the opportunity to find health care. I state, that when times were tough - we were able to get health care in a society that supposedly has none.Get it straight...

reply from:Hidari

So let me get this straight. You don't( or didn't pay at the time) pay for insurance, you don't pay through you taxes into a universal system, and you didn't pay directly to the service provider when you received the service( health care)....So what exactly do you call someone who takes things that don't belong to him, that he is not entitled to( under both American law and his own assertion) and does not pay for? Up here in "tree and fish farm ( and universal healthcare ) land" AKA Canada, we call that theft. Which would make you a thief. Right?

reply from:JasonFontaine

Not exactly. As a tax paying system -with the current BEST system on Earth - you see -we have a system in place for people. like myself at the time - that allows for us to go and get GREAT health care. That's the little 'secret' nobody speaks of around here. We did it. Excellent care. Medicaid helped us. Now, we have health care....The problem is - right now we have a HUGE portion of our society NOT paying into the system using it...ever heard of Mexico? I know of many instances where women come here from Mexico just to have a baby....The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Not done away with for one like you have in Canada.....who was it that recently had heart surgery from your country that came HERE? Who was it?Cheers!

reply from:Hidari

best system on Earth? according to who? not me that's for sure! my mother works in health care here in Canada and I can tell you we have far more AMERICANS coming here for health care than you have Canadians seeking treatment in the states.It's true that some people, who have the money to do so, will go to a foreign country( India is far more common a destination for these medical tourist fyi) but that does not mean they are without care at home. They simply choose a different treatment option. Also little known fact, if there is a treatment that is not available in a Canadian hospital( wait is to long, specialist can't be found ect) the GOVERNMENT will pay to have that person treated at a private or foreign clinic. this is important not because Canadian health care is lacking( it's not perfect but it is IMHO far better than the American one) just that a particular treatment may not be available at home or that such a treatment might be so new that the only practitioners are not Canadian( again not always American) But the patient STILL receives the care without having to live the rest of their lives in debt. this is what universal health care is about. not the location of treatment but the COVERAGE.I assume you are referring to the Newfie premier who jumped que and decided to go with an alternate treatment in the states? he was offered treatment here( infact his life threatening illness was detected by our 'inferior' system. He did not want the treatment he got here and went abroad. He is a bit of a kook by any standard( read up on him is politics are kinda entertaining) this is his CHOICE one you seem to think a public system denies him? (again fyi there are private clinics in Canada.....) I doubt he will make a claim against medicare for his expenses as he is a politician, doesn't need the money and it would likely be an unpopular move with voters but who knows..... But the option exists.so tell me if you have 'the greatest system on the earth" why do so many Americans come to Canada? why do Canadian walk in clinics have to post signs saying that anyone without a care card( ie foreigners) will have to pay a service fee? why is India the worlds largest growing medical tourist destination? why are more American gastric bypass done every year in MEXICO?And I still wonder why you seem to have no problem STEALING from a system and condemning those who do the same with the same breath?Canada is far from perfect and our system is constantly evolving and changing to meet current needs. but our taxes are manageable, and every citizen has access to quality health care.

reply from:joueravecfous

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system."I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people," he said."We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week."Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada."If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would," he said."But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven't even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don't know what I'm entitled to, if anything, and if it's nothing, then so be it."He is expected back at work in early March.

reply from:EpicFailguy

Aren't you with a Mexican woman?I liked your poem about camping by the dirty river. You're an interesting hobo. Also, I'm betting you and your troop of wetbacks are on welfare right now.

reply from:EpicFailguy

Jason says: "The system works, people! I got free health care!" "The system is broken, though, cuz other people are getting free health care."

reply from:BortSimpson

This is rich. Jason is a taxpaying citizen, therefore his Mexican girlfriend gets not only free medical care, but a private room, and "everything under the sun. Of course, he never said he wasn't obligated to pay, only that he "never paid a dime."Oh, and if your employer doesn't offer health care, that apparently lets you off the hook for medical bills. Frankly, I suspect Jason is one of those leeches who doesn't pull his weight, but takes advantage of the good will of fellow citizens, you know, the kind of guy who lives with some woman who gets welfare and only works under the table and never pays taxes, the kind of guy who is dragging the rest of us down and always expects more, giving nothing in return.

reply from:JasonFontaine

Actually - I'm about to be unemployed again....yeah - NASA....those 10 hour days and studying another 4 did lots for me....boo hoo. I just thank God if we are put into this situation - we are able to at least find something.I do not need to justify anything..just going from personal experience.My wife is a citizen...How is it that so many people come here for Health Care - yet I'm led to believe Americans are going in droves for Health Care in Canada? Medicine - maybe - but Health Care?Glad you checked out the little site....read a few words....thanks.The inherent flaw with boards are the anonymity they allow....instead of discussion with accountability - you get arguments....and it leads to nothing...Cheers...Look how "liberal" they are with the term Mexican....wow....true colors to surface when anonymous!

reply from:newfag

I don't believe you have a job. Enjoy your government cheese.

reply from:LexIcon

Interesting screenname. Were you straight and then had a conversion to fagness experience, so now you want everyone here to know about the "new" you?

reply from:JasonFontaine

Funny LexIcon and thanks....A pro-abort who "doesn't believe me" and yet denies choice to that which has none. Coming to a Pro-Life site to "argue" with a pseudo-name like NewFag? C'mon.....Moderaters have done a good job eliminating most spam - how are ip addresses like this any different?

reply from:newfag

@Jason:Since you have no reason to assume I'm not prolife, clearly you have no credibility here. Once more, I do not believe a word that oozes from between your lips, and you obviously have no qualms about saying whatever suits you, with no regard for whether or not it is true. @Lexicon:Lurk moar, Christfag.

From the HuffPo article: Which proves that Palin is "just as liable to steal as the next common crinimal," right, Hidari?

reply from:Hidari

Which proves that Palin is "just as liable to steal as the next common crinimal," right, Hidari?Exactly. The only reason she views Canada's system as 'revolting' is political. But when push came to shove her and her family felt no remorse, ( and she even brags about it now) to skipping over the border to Canada for care rather than using "the best system in the world" I wonder if now that she's making big money if she has plans to pay for the treatment her and her family stole? somehow I doubt it that would take integrity.

reply from:LexIcon

Which proves that Palin is "just as liable to steal as the next common crinimal," right, Hidari?Exactly. The only reason she views Canada's system as 'revolting' is political. But when push came to shove her and her family felt no remorse, ( and she even brags about it now) to skipping over the border to Canada for care rather than using "the best system in the world" I wonder if now that she's making big money if she has plans to pay for the treatment her and her family stole? somehow I doubt it that would take integrity.How exactly did the Palin family "steal" health care from Canada? If it was provided to them free of charge, then it wasn't, strictly speaking, stolen, now was it? Again, if Sarah was six when her family stopped going to Canada for health care, then isn't your ire somewhat misdirected? You should be going after Sarah's parents, but of course it suits your purpose to brand her a "common crinimal."Tell ya what. Why don't you e-mail Sarah Palin and express your grievance. Then you can post her reply in this thread, OK?Here's where you can start: info@sarahpac.com

reply from:newfag

All that led to her taking trips and buying things on the taxpayer's dime if I remember correctly, so I'd say she stayed true to form in adulthood. She stills feels entitled to take what she wants...

reply from:Hidari

I posted the Palin articles in response to this, to show a rather public figure who has taken advantage of the Canadian system.Thanks I'll pass on e-mailing her as really I'm sure tons of people already have and frankly I doubt I could care less what she had to say. she is a public figure and criticism should be expected.How did she steal? really now health care in Canada is provided to CITIZENS (you know those tax paying people) not to foreigners. There would have been a bill. under our privacy laws, it would not be released to the public, but rest assured there is a bill floating around out there, probably written off with all the other freeloaders. It is a major problem with our system as I have said in previous post. Also I'd like to point out that the article(s) do not state she received health care at age 6. Only that she lived near Whitehorse till age six. Nice little touch of journalistic diversion there.

reply from:LexIcon

Actually, the HuffPo article does not say how old Sarah was when she or any of the Palins received health care in Canada, or indeed if she received any at all.Also, it appears from your post that the "major problem," if not with the Canadian system then most definitely with the hospital that provided health care to the Palins, is that it was in violation of Canadian law that limits the provision of health care to "CITIZENS (you know those tax paying people) not to foreigners."That genuine "major problem" is what is bankrupting the southern border states of the U.S., namely, the provision of health care to millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

For the lazy and/or stupid, since when are funds that the Republican National Committee spends on candidates part of the "taxpayer's dime?"

reply from:newfag

"Start you off" clearly implies there is more where that came from. Use you Google, dumbass. There was also the issue of a 50k remodeling bill at taxpayer expense along with numerous other issues. Your ignorance of her spending habits in no way excuses them, but I'm not doing all the work for you here. Once more, Google the suggested keywords, you stupid, lazy phucktard.

reply from:LexIcon

Well gee, the link that started me off didn't support your smear, obnoxious prig that you have proven yourself to be.As for the 50k remodeling bill at taxpayer expense, "stupid, lazy phucktard" me, I thought that any appropriations bill had to be approved by the Alaska Legislature first before the Governor could sign it into law, but you know better than that, don't you?

reply from:newfag

Ah, falling back on the "license to steal" argument, I see...

reply from:newfag

And a pre-approved budget is not reapproved by any state congress, item by item. Palin just went hog wild with hers, treating herself and her family like kings as if it was their right. Had there been no inappropriate spending, there would never have been an issue.

reply from:LexIcon

If I'd meant to steal anything from you, newfag, I wouldn't have placed "stupid, lazy phucktard" in quotes.

reply from:LexIcon

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Post the link to the damning story here, because I'm simply not going to take your word for it.

There's plenty more where this came from. but it's all pretty much old news. I can link you to step by step instructions on using a search engine if you like...

reply from:LexIcon

Regarding the HuffPo piece, what's the outrage? $51,000 to do some home remodeling is chump change, considering that in 1983, the people of Alaska spent $2.5 MILLION to restore the Governor's mansion's interior decor to its original 1912 design, a project that also included new heating, electrical, plumbing and security systems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_GovernorThe Geiger story concerns what has been called "Troopergate," and has nothing to do with Palin's alleged "inappropriate spending."Do you have any more clinchers, say, that don't come from HuffPo or the Boston Glob?

reply from:B0zo

Wow, someone would have to be extremely desperate to think they've got dirt on a governor for a remodel of a mansion. $50k is nothing.

reply from:JasonFontaine

My question would be...why do away with a "better" system?The American Healthcare system has been the envy of the world - and now we want to socialize it?Why not fix what is clearly broken?

reply from:Hidari

And my question would be who in the world, other than Americans, think the American system is 'better'? The super rich who can afford to buy care on demand?I'll give you that your country does have some individual institutions/physicians that are top notch and treatment at them/by them is desired round the world....but then So does Britain, and India, and and... heck if I was so inclined I'm sure I could quickly google a Canadian doctor that is world renowned.This sound bite of 'fix what is broken' is so played out. what is broken is that not everyone can afford access...the solution is the put a leash on health insurance( not surprising they are fighting this making health care affordable cuts into their profit margin) and offer a public option.

reply from:EpicFailguy

I think the point about Palin is general dishonesty. Are we really going to quibble about the amounts involved in her many, many questionable expenditures, as if it's not dishonest if you profit only relatively moderately from the tendency to cheat/steal/take advantage of your position out of some misguided sense of entitlement?And "troopergate" didn't involve stealing/misappropriating/squandering actual cash, so it can't be used to further illustrate her dishonesty?http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015198.php

Of course, some of you love Palin, and she can do no wrong in your eyes. This is all old news, but you ignored it the first time around, so there's really no reason to assume any of you will abandon your rigorous apologetics at this point, is there? You oppose bills you haven't even read, just because Obama is behind them, and likewise, facts have no place in a discussion of Palin. It's all about political affiliations and loyalties, and spinning everything your way. It is a scary thought. The votes of those who are completely devoid of objectivity and refuse to think for themselves carry as much weight as the votes of those with no particular loyalties, no axes to grind, and who make it their business to be informed and conscientious voters rather than simply believing what we are told to believe.

reply from:EpicFailguy

I understand. It's "nothing" because Palin spent it without regard for necessary, even though that money belonged to the people of Alaska. Had it been Obama, I'm sure you would see it differently. Also, if it was your money, I'm sure Palin would be welcome to it, right? And you would appreciate that her immediate surroundings being made appropriate for a woman of her importance is a top priority, amirite?

reply from:LexIcon

I don't particularly care about Sarah Palin, except that she is being smeared HERE, so I would like to see you post in this thread a list every single one of her "many, many questionable expenditures" that damn her in your so very righteous eyes.

reply from:EpicFailguy

And my question would be who in the world, other than Americans, think the American system is 'better'? The super rich who can afford to buy care on demand?I'll give you that your country does have some individual institutions/physicians that are top notch and treatment at them/by them is desired round the world....but then So does Britain, and India, and and... heck if I was so inclined I'm sure I could quickly google a Canadian doctor that is world renowned.This sound bite of 'fix what is broken' is so played out. what is broken is that not everyone can afford access...the solution is the put a leash on health insurance( not surprising they are fighting this making health care affordable cuts into their profit margin) and offer a public option.He doesn't get it, and could really care less. As a homeless bum, he is taken care of, and that's the only thing that matters to him, just like the wealthy who don't really stand to personally benefit from universal health care.They all just keep spouting the same tired propaganda, actually understanding little or none of it, basically believing what they are told to believe by those they choose to trust based on shared ideals, clever misinterpretations, or a combination of the two.We had one poster who loudly argued his views on the health care bill, but has now admitted he never even read it. I'm sure there is a lot of that going around, and frankly, I'll dance naked on the steps of the courthouse if Jason is not one of them. He just agrees with the prolifers about everything in hopes they will send him money.

reply from:LexIcon

But of course you have read all 2074 pages of the Senate's health care reform bill, as well as the 1990 pages of the House's version, right?As for me, being a single issue kind of voter, I depend on NRLC and Douglas Johnson's incisive analysis to know that the Senate version is an abortionist's dream come true.

reply from:EpicFailguy

I don't particularly care about Sarah Palin, except that she is being smeared HERE, so I would like to see you post in this thread a list every single one of her "many, many questionable expenditures" that damn her in your so very righteous eyes.I don't think so. I have no intention of posting a book here that you won't read, and even if you did, you would deny or creatively interpret some kind of defense. Had you made a convincing attempt to address the issues already raised, then I might be inclined to discuss others. Until then, Google is your friend.Also, in light of the constant Obama bashing, I find your implied indignation at the "smearing" of Palin to be laughable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I might reasonably demand that you provide legitimate sources to back up any claims you make (or have made) against him. We might start with the health care bill you so vigorously oppose, and the first question, I think, must be have you actually read the bill?(let me know how the whole "prove it" thing works out for you now that you've been personally called out)

reply from:EpicFailguy

But of course you have read all 2074 pages of the Senate's health care reform bill, as well as the 1990 pages of the House's version, right?As for me, being a single issue kind of voter, I depend on NRLC and Douglas Johnson's incisive analysis to know that the Senate version is an abortionist's dream come true.Well, you don't expect me to just take your word for it, do you? I think it only fair that you be required to at least quote the relevant sections, especially in light of your attitude when you don't like what others say or respect their sources!GOOSE/GANDER

reply from:LexIcon

Smear merchant, I would check out any link that you posted, but you would rather smear me as well, wouldn't you? The issue already raised was Palin's alleged financial irresponsibility as Governor, but in your ill-considered opinion, she was only driven to "cheat/steal/take advantage of (her) position out of some misguided sense of entitlement," right?

Smear merchant, I would check out any link that you posted, but you would rather smear me as well, wouldn't you? The issue already raised was Palin's alleged financial irresponsibility as Governor, but in your ill-considered opinion, she was only driven to "cheat/steal/take advantage of (her) position out of some misguided sense of entitlement," right?Is it a "smear" to truthfully state that, by your own admission, you are arguing against a bill that you have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of, despite the link having been posted on this forum? That you insist on arguing as an authority on a subject you actually know nothing about, but, by your own admission, are simply repeating the interpretations of others (who also may or may not have actually read the bill, by the way...).

You haven't read it, smear merchant.Wouldn't it make more sense to simply ask whether I've read it, like I did you? You obviously have no way of knowing whether I have or not, so am I to assume you make a habit of spouting your hopes or assumptions as fact and hoping for the best, with no qualms regarding whether your statements are true or not? This actually speaks volumes regarding your credibility....

reply from:LexIcon

Uh, gee, the ONLY way that I could have first hand knowledge of a congressional bill would be if I had written the thing or been involved in its writing. All other knowledge of it would be second hand at best. I'm not an authority on either the Senate or House versions of health care reform, but am content to accept that NRLC's Osteen and Johnson are because they have actually read the things. That is, they aren't liars. What authoritative sources do you cite?

reply from:LexIcon

You're right. I have assumed that you had read the Senate and House health care reform bills. Have you?

reply from:LexIcon

I can almost feel your pain...

reply from:EpicFailguy

Uh, gee, the ONLY way that I could have first hand knowledge of a congressional bill would be if I had written the thing or been involved in its writing. All other knowledge of it would be second hand at best. I'm not an authority on either the Senate or House versions of health care reform, but am content to accept that NRLC's Osteen and Johnson are because they have actually read the things. That is, they aren't liars. What authoritative sources do you cite?Fail. You need only read the bill for yourself in order to know first hand what it says. You know full well that simply vouching for the credibility of the people you mindlessly parrot is not going to fly. You clearly demand more of others, so it is only fair to hold you to the same standard. Prove that your obviously biased sources are not misinterpreting the bill, or simply go straight to the source and quote the relevant passages from the bill. We don't have to rely on what anyone else tells us it says (or means). The bill itself is at our disposal. http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

reply from:EpicFailguy

You're right. I have assumed that you had read the Senate and House health care reform bills. Have you?So, despite allegedly assuming I have read it, you indignantly proclaim that I have not?

reply from:EpicFailguy

I can almost feel your pain...I'm sure...Now please quote the portion of the bill that says what you and your trusted advisers claim it does. I linked you to a copy of the bill as a small concession based on the confusion you have endured at the hands of your search engine in the past.

reply from:LexIcon

Nice try, smear merchant. You HAVEN'T read the bill, or you would post, here and now, how the interpretation of "obviously biased" Osteen and Johnson is wrong.It's only fair to hold you to your OWN standard, that is, unless you are a "mindless parrot" of some pro-Obama hack.

reply from:LexIcon

How you stroke yourself! You haven't read either bill, slimy one.

reply from:LexIcon

I asked first. Prove Osteen and Johnson wrong.

reply from:EpicFailguy

Nice try, smear merchant. You HAVEN'T read the bill, or you would post, here and now, how the interpretation of "obviously biased" Osteen and Johnson is wrong.It's only fair to hold you to your OWN standard, that is, unless you are a "mindless parrot" of some pro-Obama hack.You're demanding that I prove the negative? That I prove that it doesn't say what you claim it says, even though you can't or won't even quote the portion that allegedly says it? Surely you understand that it doesn't work that way. What if I told you I already read it, and I know it doesn't say what you claim? Must I then quote the part that doesn't say it? I must post the entire bill on this forum? LOL, you've been pwned again, and your denial, at this point, will avail you naught! It is pretty lulzy, though!

reply from:EpicFailguy

How you stroke yourself!You can't possibly be so simple as to nat have understood that you made yourself appear to be a complete idiot by saying that you had assumed I read the bill immediately after accusing me, in no uncertain terms, of not having read it!Epic lulz!

reply from:EpicFailguy

I asked first. Prove Osteen and Johnson wrong.Prove you didn't have sex with a goat. If you can't, that means you did, right? Don't be a moron...

reply from:LexIcon

Yes, indeed, how you stroke yourself!

reply from:EpicFailguy

I asked first. Prove Osteen and Johnson wrong.Oh, I did. I posted a link to the bill, which clearly proves it doesn't say what they claim! You lose.

I asked you if you'd read either bill, but how you stroke yourself!You do understand that any reader can go back a page or two and read your actual responses, right? I mean, seriously, dude, do you really think we are all stupid? Your lie is transparent, and the further you drag it out, the deeper you dig yourself... It's getting to the point where it's not even that fun anymore. You indict yourself anew with nearly every post. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted. No reasonably intelligent person would hold any expectation that a single reader would buy the BS you're slinging here, seriously. You're right. I have assumed that you had read the Senate and House health care reform bills. Have you?

reply from:LexIcon

No, not all are stupid, but you are flabbergasted, even confused by the proposition that anyone at NRLC could be telling the truth about Obamacare, Senate version.

reply from:EpicFailguy

All you have to do is quote the portion of the bill that says what you claim to vindicate both you and them. Good luck with that!

reply from:LexIcon

Nah, I believe Osteen and Johnson, who have read the Senate bill, while you haven't read jack.

reply from:EpicFailguy

Nah, I believe Osteen and Johnson, who have read the Senate bill, while you haven't read jack.I would point out that you have no idea whether I've read any of it or not, and that you are the one who is making claims regarding what is contained therein, claims that could easily be proven by simply posting the relevant text directly from the bill rather than someone's interpretation.I would also point out the fact that this began as a result of your criticisms of sources provided by others! Now you seem to think that any source you provide must be accepted as valid simply because you say so, you believe and trust them, whatever!I turned your own little game against you, played by the rules you stipulated, and soundly thrashed your @ss. Get over it already. You aren't saving any face by playing "last word" now, trust me. Most of the readers here are simply not that stupid. You really should try to accept these realities. That's all the time I have for you tonight. I hope you learned something from all this, but somehow, I doubt it...

reply from:LexIcon

There you go again, self-stroker. You HAVEN'T read the bills, and continue to turn the attack on me as a diversionary tactic. You are quite pathetic.

reply from:LexIcon

You posted a link to the House bill. I haven't taken issue with it because it contains the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupak%E2%80%93Pitts_Amendment It's the Senate bill that is problematic. See if you can figure out why.19 ''SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.20 ''(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE. - 21 ''(1) IN GENERAL. - A State may elect to pro22hibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans of23fered through an Exchange in such State if such State24 enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.2070HR 3590 EAS/PP1 ''(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT. - A State may2 repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide3 for the offering of such services through the Exchange.4 ''(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF5 ABORTION SERVICES. - 6 ''(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF7 ABORTION SERVICES. - 8 ''(A) IN GENERAL. - Notwithstanding any9 other provision of this title (or any amendment10 made by this title) - 11 ''(i) nothing in this title (or any12 amendment made by this title), shall be13 construed to require a qualified health plan14 to provide coverage of services described in15 subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of16 its essential health benefits for any plan17 year; and18 ''(ii) subject to subsection (a), the19 issuer of a qualified health plan shall deter20mine whether or not the plan provides cov21erage of services described in subparagraph22 (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for23 the plan year.24 ''(B) ABORTION SERVICES. - 2071HR 3590 EAS/PP1 ''(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC2 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED. - The services de3scribed in this clause are abortions for4 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap5propriated for the Department of Health6 and Human Services is not permitted,7 based on the law as in effect as of the date8 that is 6 months before the beginning of the9 plan year involved.10 ''(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC11 FUNDING IS ALLOWED. - The services de12scribed in this clause are abortions for13 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap14propriated for the Department of Health15 and Human Services is permitted, based on16 the law as in effect as of the date that is 617 months before the beginning of the plan18 year involved.19 ''(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL20 FUNDS. - 21 ''(A) IN GENERAL. - If a qualified health22 plan provides coverage of services described in23 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall24 not use any amount attributable to any of the2072HR 3590 EAS/PP1 following for purposes of paying for such serv2ices:3 ''(i) The credit under section 36B of4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the5 amount (if any) of the advance payment of6 the credit under section 1412 of the Patient7 Protection and Affordable Care Act).8 ''(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under9 section 1402 of the Patient Protection and10 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if11 any) of the advance payment of the reduc12tion under section 1412 of the Patient Pro13tection and Affordable Care Act).14 ''(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION AC15COUNTS. - In the case of a plan to which sub16paragraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan17 shall - 18 ''(i) collect from each enrollee in the19 plan (without regard to the enrollee's age,20 sex, or family status) a separate payment21 for each of the following:22 ''(I) an amount equal to the por23tion of the premium to be paid directly24 by the enrollee for coverage under the25 plan of services other than services de2073HR 3590 EAS/PP1 scribed in paragraph (1)(B)(i) (after2 reduction for credits and cost-sharing3 reductions described in subparagraph4 (A)); and5 ''(II) an amount equal to the ac6tuarial value of the coverage of services7 described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), and8 ''(ii) shall deposit all such separate9 payments into separate allocation accounts10 as provided in subparagraph (C).11 In the case of an enrollee whose premium for12 coverage under the plan is paid through em13ployee payroll deposit, the separate payments re14quired under this subparagraph shall each be15 paid by a separate deposit.16 ''(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS. - 17 ''(i) IN GENERAL. - The issuer of a18 plan to which subparagraph (A) applies19 shall establish allocation accounts described20 in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving21 amounts described in subparagraph (A).22 ''(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS. - The23 issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A)24 applies shall deposit - 2074HR 3590 EAS/PP1 ''(I) all payments described in2 subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate3 account that consists solely of such4 payments and that is used exclusively5 to pay for services other than services6 described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and7 ''(II) all payments described in8 subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a sepa9rate account that consists solely of such10 payments and that is used exclusively11 to pay for services described in para12graph (1)(B)(i).13 ''(D) ACTUARIAL VALUE. - 14 ''(i) IN GENERAL. - The issuer of a15 qualified health plan shall estimate the16 basic per enrollee, per month cost, deter17mined on an average actuarial basis, for in18cluding coverage under the qualified health19 plan of the services described in paragraph20 (1)(B)(i).21 ''(ii) CONSIDERATIONS. - In making22 such estimate, the issuer - 23 ''(I) may take into account the24 impact on overall costs of the inclusion25 of such coverage, but may not take into2075HR 3590 EAS/PP1 account any cost reduction estimated2 to result from such services, including3 prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal4 care;5 ''(II) shall estimate such costs as6 if such coverage were included for the7 entire population covered; and8 ''(III) may not estimate such a9 cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per10 month.11 ''(E) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SEG12REGATION REQUIREMENTS. - 13 ''(i) IN GENERAL. - Subject to clause14 (ii), State health insurance commissioners15 shall ensure that health plans comply with16 the segregation requirements in this sub17section through the segregation of plan18 funds in accordance with applicable provi19sions of generally accepted accounting re20quirements, circulars on funds management21 of the Office of Management and Budget,22 and guidance on accounting of the Govern23ment Accountability Office.24 ''(ii) CLARIFICATION. - Nothing in25 clause (i) shall prohibit the right of an indi2076HR 3590 EAS/PP1 vidual or health plan to appeal such action2 in courts of competent jurisdiction.3 ''(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE. - 4 ''(A) NOTICE. - A qualified health plan that5 provides for coverage of the services described in6 paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall provide a notice to en7rollees, only as part of the summary of benefits8 and coverage explanation, at the time of enroll9ment, of such coverage.10 ''(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS. - The11 notice described in subparagraph (A), any adver12tising used by the issuer with respect to the plan,13 any information provided by the Exchange, and14 any other information specified by the Secretary15 shall provide information only with respect to16 the total amount of the combined payments for17 services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and18 other services covered by the plan.19 ''(4) NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVI20SION OF ABORTION. - No qualified health plan offered21 through an Exchange may discriminate against any22 individual health care provider or health care facility23 because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, pro24vide coverage of, or refer for abortions2077HR 3590 EAS/PP1 ''(c) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RE2GARDING ABORTION. - 3 ''(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARD4ING ABORTION. - Nothing in this Act shall be con5strued to preempt or otherwise have any effect on6 State laws regarding the prohibition of (or require7ment of) coverage, funding, or procedural require8ments on abortions, including parental notification or9 consent for the performance of an abortion on a10 minor.11 ''(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING12 ABORTION. - 13 ''(A) IN GENERAL. - Nothing in this Act14 shall be construed to have any effect on Federal15 laws regarding - 16 ''(i) conscience protection;17 ''(ii) willingness or refusal to provide18 abortion; and19 ''(iii) discrimination on the basis of20 the willingness or refusal to provide, pay21 for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide22 or participate in training to provide abor23tion.

reply from:newfag

You're the one who is opposed, and you can't even "figure out why." You already admitted that you oppose it just because your "friends" told you you should, and that you have no clue what any of it means...Your tax dollars will pay for abortion? The quoted section says it ain't so...So what else ya got, sport?

reply from:LexIcon

You're the one who is opposed, and you can't even "figure out why." You already admitted that you oppose it just because your "friends" told you you should, and that you have no clue what any of it means...Your tax dollars will pay for abortion? The quoted section says it ain't so...So what else ya got, sport?Well, I'm sure that I never wrote that I had no clue what any of it means, but I admit that the section of the Senate bill that I posted appears to disallow federal funds from being used to underwrite the cost of abortion in anyone's federally administered health care plan, but the question I have now is why anyone would oppose the Senate version based on the bill's language that I posted?IOW, there must be something that I'm overlooking, or there are lots of liars and/or misinformed people out there whose word I have trusted. So, EpicFailguy was right to challenge me, and fully expect that if he reads this post he will look for an opportunity to rub my face in it.

reply from:EpicFailguy

Wow. I didn't see that coming. We have highpowered Republicans who spend their waking hours pondering how best to politically ruin Obama, and this bill is seen as a "do or die" issue for this presidency. If he makes it work, all his supporters get to say "I told you so," and he has a good chance of going down in history not only as our first president of African descent, but the president who brought health care availability to all U.S. citizens. If he fails, there'll be nothing really outstanding about his (most likely) single term, and he'll be remembered as a novelty only, the first African American president.This bill will make or break Obama, and if he succeeds, he has a shot at a second term. If he fails, he goes down the tubes...That's the way the top minds are calling it, anyway... This is why it's such a big deal, and people will lie for a lot less. (note that I use "lie" so that it includes "creative interpretations" and distortions of truth, as well as any other dishonest propaganda)Look deep into this. Whether we voted for Obama or not, and whether we agree with all his policies or not, I believe he has the best of intentions, and is a competent leader, deserving of our respect. When he's wrong, I will say he is wrong, but when he is right, I will be honest enough to acknowledge that. Universal health care, under the restrictions contained in this bill (especially the new regulations governing insurance companies and the "special agents" who will crack down of fraud), will allow every citizen to have access to proper medical care, and in the long run, is expected to save the taxpayer money!

reply from:LexIcon

EpicFailguy, I owe you an apology for my rude comments, and I thank you both for challenging me to go to the source, and for not rubbing my face in it once I realized that my position was flawed regarding the Senate version of health care reform. As for President Obama, I simply don't trust the man to NOT do everything in his power to advance the cause of abortion-on-demand-as-THE-measure-of-female-equality-with-men. Of course he would do so with "the best of intentions." Why do I think this about the man? Consider his track record: http://www.lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html